Deputy auditor overseeing Pearce probe is supporter of Wilton’s

Joe Juhasz, the deputy auditor assigned to oversee a probe into Treasurer Beth Pearce’s oversight of the state pension system, made a financial contribution to Wendy Wilton’s campaign last month.

Juhasz today confirmed the donation and said he’s a longtime Republican who’s also written checks this year to Republican candidate for auditor Vince Illuzzi and Republican candidate for governor Randy Brock.

Pearce, the Democratic incumbent, and Wilton, her Republican challenger, have locked horns this fall in what has become one of the more contentious races for statewide office.

Juhasz, who gave $200 to the Wilton campaign on Sept. 13, said his support for the Republican won’t in any way color his inquiry into Pearce’s management.

Wilton has said that the 3,000 hours racked up by a single employee over the last three fiscal years are of particular concern.

Pearce has said that the overtime expenses were offset by savings from a position she opted to leave vacant. She said her office has come in $500,000 under budget in the two years since she was appointed to the post.

According to Galloway, special-fund spending under Pearce has increased by about $325,000.

Pearce’s camp said the Wilton allegations are groundless, calling them “election-year politics at its worst”

Juhasz said he’s unconcerned about even the appearance of a conflict of interest as he investigates Wilton’s claims. He said Salmon is aware of his political contributions.

“I said we will do what we always do – send a letter of preliminary review,” Juhasz said this morning. “And then the normal process is to ask some questions so we understand what the issues are.”

While he’s been responsible for overseeing the inquiry, Juhasz said he won’t be part of the five-person management team that decides whether to launch a formal audit based on Pearce’s response.

“I have no way of assessing whether the charges made in the complaint have any validity or not,” Juhasz said. “So the first thing we want to do is educate ourselves about the project and how the costs are allocated.”

Pearce won’t be required to deliver responses to the inquiry until after Nov. 6.

It is disappointing to hear Mr. Juhasz say he is “unconcerned about even the appearance of a conflict of interest” because Government Auditing Standards are very clear about this.

“The credibility of auditing in the government sector is based on auditors’ objectivity in discharging their professional responsibilities. Objectivity includes independence of mind and appearance when providing audits, maintaining an attitude of impartiality, having intellectual honesty, and being free of conflicts of interest. Maintaining objectivity includes a continuing assessment of relationships with audited entities and other stakeholders in the context of the auditors’ responsibility to the public.” [Section 1.19, Government Auditing Standards, GAO, Office of the Comptroller General, 2011 Revision]

In addition, the Auditor attended Ms. Wilton’s campaign kick off, is quoted on her website, and wrote a letter in support of her candidacy that was published in a local paper.

Taken together, these actions have completely compromised the objectivity of the office. The Auditor’s Office should acknowledge the impairment and hire an independent auditing firm to review the claims.

@DougHoffer
Once again you are shooting your mouth off without knowing what you are talking about. Asking the treasurer to explain what the Retirement Fund Re-Engineering Project is and how the project costs are allocated does not constitute an audit. If you had ever done an audit you would recognize this – but of course you are not an auditor. So your rant about government auditing standards and comprising the integretary of the office is really BS!
If we audit the treasurer’s office, it will be by the professional standards posted on our website. Have a nice day.

@joe juhasz
One more thing. It’s interesting that you refer to “audits” when you have wasted so much time (and taxpayer funds) on “situation reports” which are not even mentioned in the government audting standards. Serious professionals would not dismiss auditing standards so casually.